If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Should college athletes get paid?!

Originally Posted by ESPN 5/23/14

A federal judge on Friday denied motions by the NCAA that would delay trial on an antitrust suit by former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon and others, ordering the trial to go forward next month in California. Judge Claudia Wilken ordered a June 9 trial in Oakland, California, on the antitrust lawsuit. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that would allow Division I players the right to band together to sell their services in an open market. If successful, the lawsuit could upend the NCAA's current model built upon the concept college athletes are amateurs and shouldn't be compensated beyond tuition and basic room and board.

A total of 20 former college athletes -- including such names as former NBA stars Bill Russell and Oscar Robertson -- are plaintiffs in the suit that seeks an injunction that could allow athletes to band together and sell their services to colleges, either in the form of pay or extra benefits the NCAA doesn't currently allow.

Originally Posted by The Boston Globe 5/31/14

A $40 million settlement has been completed that will pay college football and basketball players dating to 2003 for the use of their likenesses in NCAA-branded videogames. The payouts could go to more than 100,000 athletes, including some current players, who were either on college rosters or had their images used in videogames made by Electronic Arts featuring college teams. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say it would be the first time college athletes will be paid for the commercial use of their images. Depending on how many athletes apply for the settlement, the payments could range from as little as $48 for each year an athlete was on a roster to $951 for each year the image of an athlete was used in a videogame.

The settlement is with Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Co., which licenses and markets college sports, and does not include the NCAA. The case against the NCAA is scheduled for trial early next year. Plaintiffs in the case, which dates to 2009, contend the NCAA conspired with Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing Co. to illegally use their images in videogames. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken still must approve the proposed settlement, which comes on the eve of a major antitrust trial against the NCAA that could reshape the way college sports operate. That case, featuring former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon and others as lead plaintiffs, goes to trial June 9 in Oakland, California.

EA Sports announced last year it would stop making the long-running NCAA football videogame series because of the litigation and other issues in securing licensing rights.

So this has been a pretty wide scoping story in sports lately. This $40 million EA settlement for the video games is chump change but it could be another important domino to fall in a major change to the college sports landscape. The players who were on the covers of those games should really get a lot more money, not sure if they will though. The antitrust trial beginning June 9 will be the big thing to watch. I think the players will win based on this trend of rulings.. but aside from that, SHOULD they be paid? And should they be allowed to make money off endorsements? Which in the case of the big names like Tebow, Manziel, Reggie Bush, Vince Young.. would potentially be multi-million dollar endorsement deals while they're still in college. THOUGHTS?